Monday, October 2, 2017

Flushed with political
capital from a trouncing 70% mandate captured at the September 2015 General
Elections, the PAP Government kicked off its 13th Parliament in January 2016 by
announcing plans to make changes to Singapore's political system.

Presumably to serve Singaporeans,
but perhaps to serve the PAP's hegemony, the plans would include changes to the
Elected Presidency (EP).

Appointment of a Constitutional Commission

In a generous gesture
towards open and consultative governance, the PAP Government commissioned nine
highly credentialed, well-known Singaporeans (the “Commission”) to study and make recommendations to the Government on
certain aspects of the EP.

Significantly, this
would be only the second constitutional commission since Singapore's
independence. The only other time we had a constitutional commission was on 12 August
1965, just three days after Singapore's independence, when Prime Minister Lee
Kuan Yew sought Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin to convene a commission to
recommend a Constitution for the new Republic.

Notably, the Government
confined the Commission to three specific aspects of the EP:

a mechanism to safeguard minority
representation;

the
qualifying criteria for candidacy; and

the role of the Council of Presidential Advisers.

The Commission immediately
organized a nationwide public consultation, in the process of which the
Commission received 107 written submissions and heard oral representations from
19 contributors over four full-day public hearings.

The appointment of the
Commission and public consultation it undertook received the full measure of
coverage by the mainstream media.

In August 2016, the Commission
submitted its 183-page Report
to the Government.

Regarding the aspect of a
mechanism to safeguard minority representation, the Commission recommended a
reserved election scheme. When a member from any racial group has not occupied
the President’s office for five continuous terms, the next Presidential
elections should be reserved for candidates from that group. In the event that
no suitable candidate from that group emerges, that election would then be
opened to candidates of all races. The reserved election would then be deferred
to the next presidential election, and the practice of holding a reserved
election will continue until a candidate from the racial group for which a
reserved election had been convened is elected as President.

White Paper

In September 2016, in
response to the Commission’s Report, the Government released its White
Paper on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill
(the “Bill”) that would bring in the
changes to the EP.

According to the White
Paper, the Government and accepted in principle the Commission’s main
recommendations.

In particular, the
Government agreed with the Commission’s proposed safeguard mechanism of holding
reserved elections when a particular race group has not been represented in the
Presidential office after five continuous terms.

However, in some areas
the Government rejected the Commission’s recommendations or accepted them with
modifications, so there were a number of recommendations which did not make it
to the Bill which the Government presented to Parliament for debate.

Interestingly, the
Commission took the liberty of deviating from the confines of its terms of reference
to put in a recommendation that the EP be abolished altogether, suggesting that
we should go back to the old system of appointing the President. The Commission
suggested that the President’s symbolic and custodial roles be “unbundled” and
divided into two different institutions. The appointed President would serve his
symbolic and ceremonial role as the Head of State with the custodial role given
to an appointed specialist body. The Commission thought that a nominated presidency
would better suit its symbolic function as a unifying figure who represents
multi-racial Singapore. Predictably, the Government categorically rejected the
Commission’s idea of returning to a nominated presidency.

Qualifying Criteria for Candidacy

Regarding the aspect of qualifying
criteria for candidacy, the Commission made three recommendations:

That the offices of the Accountant-General and
the Auditor-General be removed from the list of public-sector qualifying
offices;

That the period which qualifying public sector
candidates must hold office be increased from three to six years; and

That the benchmark of $100
million in shareholders’ equity required for private sector candidates be
increased to $500 million.

Of those three
recommendations on qualifying criteria for candidacy, the Government rejected
all but one.

The Government rejected
the Commission’s recommendation to remove the offices of the Accountant-General
and the Auditor-General from the list of public-sector
qualifying offices under the automatic track. As such, there was no provision in the Bill
to amend the existing list of public-sector qualifying offices.

The Government also
rejected the Commission’s recommendation to double the duration which
applicants must have served in the qualifying public-sector office, from 3 to 6
years. The duration which applicants
must have served in the qualifying public-sector office would remain as 3
years.

We now know that had that
particular recommendation been adopted, Halimah Yacob who was Speaker of
Parliament for 4.5 years (14 January 2013 to 7 August 2017) - would not have
qualified.

On the other hand, for
private sector aspirants, the Government accepted the Commission’s
recommendation to increase the benchmark of $100 million to $500 million in
shareholders’ equity. It later transpired
that two aspirants from the private sector were found ineligible to run for the
EP on the basis of failing to meet this new criterion.

Did the Government play double standards when it
rejected the Commission’s recommendation in respect of public sector candidates
while accepting the Commission’s recommendation in respect of private sector
candidates?

Were the qualifying criteria for public sector
candidates set too low?

Indeed, how challenging is the role of a Speaker
in a parliament where the opposition number 6 MPs out of 89?

Were the qualifying criteria for private sector
candidates set too high?

Does the emphasis on financial competency
undermine the EP’s equally important symbolic function as a unifying figure for
multi-racial Singapore?

How can we be assured that qualifying criteria
for candidacy did not privilege the ruling party and the political elites at
the expense of democracy and the political independence of the EP?

The Government’s Prerogative

The Government chose to
appoint a Commission to study and make recommendations to the Government. The
Government chose the members of the Commission and determined its terms of
reference. It is the Government’s
prerogative to accept, reject or modify any of the recommendations made.

The Government’s
decision on which of the Commission’s suggestions to pick, discard or modify,
is not open for debate.

What the Government put
up for Parliament to debate on was the Bill - the end result of the
Government’s cherry-picking exercise.

On 7 November 2016, the
Bill was tabled to Parliament. It was at this point, that the Prime Minister dropped
the bombshell. The Government had decided that when the Bill was passed, the
next presidential elections would be one reserved for Malays. By the
Government’s reckoning, the five-term count starts from President Wee Kim Wee.

The Bill was debated in
Parliament over three days. 39 Members
of Parliament (MPs) — including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and five
ministers weighed in.

Needless to say, the
Bill was passed by Parliament on 9 November 2016.

For record purposes, the
Bill was passed by a vote of 77 to 6, with all six elected MPs from the
opposition Workers’ Party objecting.

With the passing of the
Bill, Singaporeans braced themselves for a presidential election reserved for
Malays.

On 7 August 2017, Halimah
Yacob, a member of the PAP since 2001, resigned from her positions as Speaker
and MP, and from her membership in the PAP to announce her a candidacy for the
2017 presidential election. Her decision to run was endorsed by the Prime
Minister as well as many other PAP leaders, making it crystal clear to everyone
that she was the PAP’s choice.

On 28 August 2017, the
Government issued the Writ of Election.

On Nomination Day, Halimah
Yacob turned out to be the only applicant eligible to run for the EP under the
changed rules. On 14 September 2017, merely 37 days after leaving the PAP, she become
the 8th President of Singapore.

The PAP made as if switching
immediately from active PAP politician to non-partisan unifier for all
Singaporeans was no big deal. But for
other Singaporeans, her close ties with the ruling party begged the question: when
she becomes President and start holding the second key, can she really act independently
from the ruling party and be an effective check on the Government? The question
became rhetorical as she was the only candidate for the EP.

The cancellation of
polls came as a shock to Singaporeans. All the months and months of talk about
the EP engendered by the mainstream media, got many Singaporeans geared up with
anticipation for the excitement of hustings and electioneering, and for the
privilege to mark their choice with an X on ballot slip. News of a one-horse
race was not just a let-down. Singaporeans felt robbed of their participation
in politics.

Moreover, that the 2017
presidential election was to be one reserved for Malays was already mired in
controversy. For many Singaporeans, the Government’s reasoning that the count
should start with President Wee Kim Wee because he was the first President “who
exercised the powers of the Elected President” was incredulous, failed
logic and difficult to swallow. Singaporeans
are clear in their minds that our first Elected President was Ong Teng Cheong.
A 5-member Court of Appeal’s dismissal of a legal challenge to the Government’s
insistence on starting the count with President Wee Kim Wee, did little to
assuage the widespread cynicism that the Government would have their way even
at the expense of logic.

The PAP Government has
the dubious distinction of making many innovations to our political system: the
Nominated Member of Parliament scheme, the Non-Constituency Member of
Parliament scheme, the Group Representation Constituency scheme, and of course
the EP. Our Constitution has endued numerous amendments, usually coming into
effect shortly before an election. In
the cynic’s view, it’s like moving the goal posts so that the opponent can
never strike a goal.

The recent amendments to
the Constitution to change the EP rules coming in just months before the 2017 EP
elections, is par for the course with the PAP.

Is the PAP Government’s
constant tinkering with our political system a form of gerrymandering?

The 2017 presidential
elections becoming a one-horse race, the citizenry’s contempt and suspicion
that the whole episode was but a charade to shoo-in a ruling party stalwart –
did the PAP Government see that coming?

I kinda felt like Alice in Wonderland tumbling down the Rabbit Hole, when I read Teo Soh Lung’s book, and when I began to find out what happened to those who were arrested on 21 May 1987.

‘Prequel’ to Operation Spectrum

Straits Times article published on 22 May 1986

But let me tell you what happened exactly one year before.

On 22 May 1986, the Straits Times reported that the Law Society of Singapore was strongly critical of the Government for proposing new laws which would curb the freedom of the press. Teo Soh Lung was head of the Law Society Committee which prepared the critical press statement. The Law Society was concerned that the proposed new laws would restrict freedom of speech. The Law Society’s public objections to the proposed laws attracted much attention.

But despite the controversies, the proposed new laws were voted through by Parliament and became law in August 1986. After all, there were only 2 opposition MPs out of 79 seats in Parliament.

Was the Government unhappy with the Law Society for speaking against the proposed new laws?

A few months later in 1986, the Government proposed yet another set of new laws, this time aiming at the Law Society. One of the proposed new laws was to remove the Law Society’s right to offer comments on matters affecting law, unless asked by the Government to do so.

Again, Teo Soh Lung headed the committee under the Law Society to review these proposed new laws aimed at lawyers. About 400 lawyers met and passed a resolution for the Law Society to call on the Government to withdraw its proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act. However, despite the strong objections, the proposed laws were voted through by Parliament and became law in October 1986.

So a very peculiar situation thereby arose in Singapore. The Law Society is, by law, not allowed to speak up on law, unless invited up the Government to do so. This restraint on the Law Society remains to this day. The Law Society cannot speak, unless spoken to.

Then, in the early hours of 21 May 1987, Teo Soh Lung was arrested and detained under ISA.

Do you think her arrest was expected or unexpected?

For Soh Lung, it was completely unexpected. She had been watching Miss Universe the night before.

‘All Power Has Legal Limits’

Soh Lung and other detainees appealed to the Court against their ISA detention orders. [3]

In the course of dealing with Teo Soh Lung’s appeal, the Court of Appeal declared that all power has legal limits. The rule of law demands that the courts should be able to review the Minister’s decision to detain anyone under ISA. The Minister did not have unlimited discretion.

This was wonderful news to the detainees. The detainees would have the Court’s protection against abuse of the ISA.

What happened next?

Within one month, the Government drew up new laws to take away the Court’s power to review the Minister’s decision to detain a person under ISA. The proposed new laws would completely reverse the effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment a month ago. These new laws were voted on by Parliament and become law in January 1989. Henceforth, if the Minister decides to detain a person under ISA, he has no obligation to explain his decision to any Judge. This is still the case today.

Strange? I think so. The Government acted with lightning speed to amend the Constitution and the ISA, to cancel the effect of a Court of Appeal judgment.

In Singapore, Parliament can enact or amend ordinary law with the support of a simple majority (i.e. more than 50%) of elected MPs.

As for the Constitution, it cannot be amended unless with the approval of two-thirds of elected MPs.

However, throughout the history of Singapore, there has never been more than a handful of opposition MPs in Parliament. That being the case, it would not be terribly difficult to get the requisite majority needed to amend the Constitution or to change laws.

In fact, since independence, there have been some 40 acts of parliament to amend the Singapore Constitution. Our Constitution has been amended loads of times.

Can it be right to constantly amend the Constitution or to keep changing the laws? What are the limits?

We have seen how quickly laws have been proposed and voted through by Parliament. This is because our system is one where the ruling party has, at all times, held an overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament.

I don’t think it is just about amending or abolishing the ISA. Ultimately, the ISA is but a tool. As with any tool, we also need to consider he who wields the tool. We need to consider the entire system under which we operate.

So under our present system, how is the use of powers checked and balanced? Who checks and balances powers? Who can we rely on for protection against unjust use of powers? The Courts ? Opposition MPs ? NMPs ? NCMPs ? Mr Brown perhaps ?

The ‘One’ Who Shall Protect Us

But I know The One who can be our Strong Protector. The One is in our midst here. The One I speak of is YOU and ME: Citizens, Ordinary Citizens who are not afraid to Speak Up when things do not seem right.

A strong civil society with an active citizenry is a powerful counter-weight against any wrong use of powers. They know the power of our combined voices. Which is why much efforts have been made, and will continue to be made, to control our freedoms.

Friends, for too long, we have been afraid and too silent. But let us not be afraid or silent anymore. Let us embrace our whole humanity – we are people who think and feel. And we CARE and we WILL speak up against wrongs and injustice.

Let us re-activate our minds, quicken our conscience for rights and wrongs, restore our voices and reclaim our freedoms. Let us bring active citizenry back to its rightful place in our society. Our minds, our heart and our voices in active citizenry - that is our best safeguard against bullying.

The Choice

Let me come back to what Morpheus said to Neo.

Here is the blue pill. Here is the red pill.

Take the blue pill – forget the hard truths, remain in Oblivion and dream about illusions.

Take the red pill - know the truth, leave your detention cell, and dare to dream about a new future.

Do you not want to take control of your life?

Do you not want to shape your own your future?

You need no longer be slaves to fear. Freedom is at hand.

Take the red pill and take your place in society.

____________________________

FOOTNOTES

[1] In Greek mythology, Morpheus is the God of Dreams, responsible for the dreams of people.

[2] The complete dialogue between Morpheus and Neo is
fascinating. Click here for the dialogue
transcript: Click
here for a clip of this pivotal scene from the movie.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Part-time cleaner, Mdm Vellama d/o Marie Muthu
is a Singapore citizen and resident voter of Hougang Single Member Constituency
(SMC).

On 15 February 2012, her Member of Parliament
(MP) was expelled from his political party, which left his parliamentary seat
vacant. The next day, the Prime Minister said that there was no fixed
time within which he must call for a by-election. He added that "there are
many other issues on the national agenda right now".[1]

Unhappy at the prospect of being indefinitely
without the service of an MP representing her vote, Mdm Vellama applied to the
High Court on 2 March 2012 for remedy.

Asking to see the Judge

Mdm Vellama’s High Court application is for a
declaration that the Prime Minister does not have unrestrained discretion when
deciding whether or not a by-election should be called in Hougang SMC, and a
mandatory order requiring the Prime Minister to advise the President to call a
by-election within three months or some other reasonable time determined by the
court.

According to Rules of Court, Mdm Vellama would
first need to obtain the Court’s “leave” (i.e. permission) before her
application can be heard by the Judge and decided on the merits. The
purpose of this initial “leave” stage is to serve as a filter:

“… to be a means of
filtering out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage, and its aim is to
prevent a wasteful use of judicial time and to protect public bodies from
harassment (whether intentional or otherwise) that might arise from a need to
delay implementing decisions, where the legality of such decisions is being
challenged.”[2]

As the Attorney-General explained:

“Leave must first be
obtained in judicial review proceedings so that cases which are misconceived or
unarguable can be weeded out.”[3]

Hopeless cases which do not deserve to be heard,
should be stopped on its tracks at the door.

On 2 April 2012, a High Court Judge decided that
Mdm Vellama’s application passed the initial filtering test. Mdm Vallama
was given leave for a substantive hearing and a Hearing Date of 16 April 2012
was given to her.

Appeal against Judge’s decision to hear

On 4 April 2012, in a surprising move (at least
to me it was), the Attorney-General filed an Appeal against the High Court
Judge’s decision to grant leave to hear Mdm Vellama’s application. This
effectively translates to Attorney-General saying that Mdm Vallama’s
application does not deserve to be heard and that the decision by the High
Court Judge to hear her out, was wrong. The Attorney-General’s Appeal
will be heard on 16 May 2012.

From anecdotal accounts, it seems that many
Hougang constituents and Singaporeans (including me) share Mdm Vellama’s
unhappiness with the Government’s position that it is not held to any
particular time frame for announcing the Hougang by-election, or for that
matter, any by-election when a parliamentary seat of an SMC becomes vacant.

History of By-Elections

Mdm Vellama’s anxieties are not without
basis. There had been instances in the past, where parliamentary seats
were vacated by the respective MPs due to death or disqualification, but where
no by-elections were held:

(a)In December 1983, the MP
for Havelock constituency, Hon Sui Sen, passed away in office. His seat was
thus vacated. No by-elections were held in the ward until the General Election
in 1984, when the Havelock seat was erased from the electoral map.

(b)In November 1986, the
late JB Jeyaretnam’s seat in Anson was vacated after he was disqualified from
holding a seat in Parliament. No by-elections were held and the seat remained
vacant until the 1988 General Election, when the Anson seat was erased from the
electoral map.

(c)In December 1986, the
Geylang West seat became vacant after its MP Teh Cheang Wan committed suicide.
No by-elections were held until the 1988 General Election when the Geylang West
seat was erased from the electoral map.

Academics have weighed in[4] and Singaporeans are
keen to know the Court’s opinion on the limits of Executive discretion in
respect of SMC by-elections.

Why Appeal?

Given the public interest in Mdm Vellama’s
application, it is perplexing that the Attorney-General has decided to vigorously
challenge the High Court’s decision to hear Mdm Vellama's application. If
the Attorney-General’s Appeal succeeds, Mdm Vellama’s case would be thrown out;
which means that she, Hougang constituents and Singaporeans will be denied of
the Court’s opinion on the question whether the Prime Minister’s discretion is
or is not limited to a definite time-frame for calling by-elections.

If Mdm Vellama’s application is indeed
"legally flawed" as the Attorney-General has argued, then it is
doomed; and the Court will eventually dismiss it after it has been heard.
So what's the harm in letting Mdm Vellama have her day in Court and to let justice
be seen to be done?

Legal Costs?

In Court proceedings, when a party “wins”, the
winning party can ask the Court to order the losing party to pay costs. If the Attorney-General’s Appeal succeeds,
would the Attorney-General ask the Court to order Mdm Vellama to pay
costs? I hope not.

Every Singapore citizen in all other
constituencies has his own elected MP to serve him. Mdm Vellama has turned
to the Court for help because she fears she would not be having what every
Singaporean in all other constituencies has. It would be disappointing
enough if the Attorney-General "wins" their Appeal, for that would
mean that her application is thrown out. To be made to pay the
Attorney-General's legal costs for asking the Court for help, would be a disastrous
result.

Role of Attorney-General

We know that the Attorney-General is the
Government’s legal adviser[5]. If the
Attorney-General serves the Executive, then do the interests of the Executive
coincide, or conflict, with the interests of the public (i.e. citizens) in
respect of the legal questions posed by Mdm Vellama’s application?

What if the Executive one day decides to abolish
SMCs altogether? Or if supposing Executive thinks it is better to hold
elections once in 10 years in the interest of political stability and to avoid
the expense and distraction of holding general elections once every 4 or 5
years?

If (hypothetically) the Executive wants to amend
the Constitution in a manner which serves the political interests of the ruling
party at the expense of civil liberties, and if the ruling party has the
requisite two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass such amending legislation,
who will defend the citizens’ rights from being encroached upon?

What will be the role of the Attorney-General in
such a hypothetical scenario? As the Government’s legal adviser, the
Attorney-General would presumably defend the Government’s position with all its
best efforts.

In the aftermath of the 1997 General Elections,
the Workers' Party complained to the police that PAP leaders (Prime Minister Mr
Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan and Deputy Prime Minister
Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong) had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling
station on Polling Day, when none of them were candidates for Cheng San GRC[6].

The Workers' Party cited two sections of the
Parliamentary Elections Act:

Section 82(1)(d):

"No person shall
wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of
gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".

Section 82(1)(e):

"No person shall
loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any
polling station on polling day."

However, the Attorney-General stated that the
PAP leaders had not broken the law.

Pointing to the use of the word “outside” in
Section 82(1)(d), the Attorney-General explained[7]:

“Plainly, persons found
waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this
section. …. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence
under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast
their votes.”

As for Section 82(1)(e), the Attorney-General pointed
to the use of the word “within” and explained[8]:

“The relevant question
is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be
"within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". …Plainly, a
person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200
metres of a polling station.”

If at that time, Singapore had an independent
election body overseeing the election procedures, I think the Workers’ Party
would probably have lodged their complaint to such a body instead of lodging
their complaint to the police as they did.
I wonder how such an independent election body would have dealt with the
Workers’ Party’s complaint.

In the English case of Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7, the UK Official Secrets Act
1920 stated that it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces “in
the vicinity” of a prohibited place. The defendant was in the station at the
time of the obstruction. He argued that
if he was on the station he could not be in the vicinity of the station. The
court held that it would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near
to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. The defendant’s conviction of the offence was
upheld.

List of legislation amending the Constitution

Amending the Constitution

As we know, the provisions of the Constitution
may be amended by the votes of two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs,
which works out to 58 out of the current 87 parliamentary seats. This has
been done numerous times in the past. Since 1965 to date, there have been 37
acts of parliament to amend the Singapore Constitution.

More importantly, Singapore’s electoral system
has been amended at least four times since 1984, each of these amendments
coming into effect shortly before general elections, as the following table
illustrates:[9]

Constitutional Amendment

Effective
Date

Nomination
Day

Lead
Time

Introduction of Non-Constituency
Member of Parliament scheme

10
Aug 1984

13
Dec 1984

4
months

Introduction of Group
Representation Constituency scheme

31
May 1988

3
Sep 1988

3
months

Introduction of Nominated Member
of Parliament scheme

10
Sep 1990

21
Aug 1991

11
months

Change in Group Representation
Constituency scheme

2
Jan 1991

21
Aug 1991

7
months

Act 41 of 1996

12
Nov 1996

23
Dec 1996

<
2 months

I imagine the short lead time between the
effective date of the electoral changes and the date of elections would have
made it difficult for opposition parties to react and to prepare themselves for
elections.

Notably, Singapore has never had an independent
body overseeing election procedures and the drawing of constituency
boundaries. Our Election Department has always been under the Prime
Minister's office. Criticism by opposition parties of an unlevel
political playing field cannot be independently evaluated.

Balancing the Powers

Unless there are sufficient opposition MPs in
Parliament (at least 29) to deny the ruling party their two-thirds majority,
citizens have only two defenders left to protect their civil rights: the
Judiciary and Civil Society.

The effectiveness of the Judiciary in checking
the Executive will be curtailed whenever the scope of judicial review of
executive decisions are being reduced or eliminated (e.g. section 8B(2) of the
Internal Security Act).

The effectiveness of Civil Society in speaking
out for the protection of fundamental liberties will be curtailed so long as
freedom of speech is circumscribed by legislation mandating the requirement to
obtain a licence to speak publicly, assembly or gather in public (Public Order
Act), restricting the formation of societies (Societies Act), vigilant,
vigorous enforcement of defamation laws by political appointment holders[10], and so forth.

We have heard the old adage: Absolute power
corrupts absolutely. All power must have limits. The exercise of
Executive powers, as with any other kind of powers, cannot be unfettered.

Democracy is a flawed system, no doubt; but this
imperfect system respects the collective voting might of ordinary citizens and
makes everyone equal. Whether rich, influential, poor or obscure – each
citizen has one vote.

In functioning democracies, Executive powers are
checked and balanced by:

Clearly
defined constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties

presence
of sufficient numbers of opposition MPs in Parliament

an
independent Judiciary with effective, sufficient powers of judicial review
over Executive decisions

a
Civil Society which is not overly hindered by laws restricting freedom of
speech and public assembly

an
independent elections commission to oversee election procedures

As of now, are all these
safeguards securely in place in our socio-political landscape?

About Me

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is a practising lawyer who earned her law degree in the United Kingdom. She also holds a Masters Degree in Corporate & Commercial Law from the London School of Economics & Political Science and was called to the English Bar in 1986.
Jeannette is happily married and a mother of four children.
She challenged the incumbent at Mountbatten SMC in Singapore's 2011 General Elections and garnered 41.38% of the votes cast.